Forums » Suggestions
I like how Greenwall manages to blame wide-spectrum combat issues on FAMY.
He does make good points, but none of those are in favor of pirates. If anything, they're in favor of the traders who hold the stations for longer periods of time. It would also introduce a new dynamic in station battles because the fight for the dock would be more frantic.
It strains credulity to think that my ship can have 1% armor, be smoking and on fire, and still perform exactly as it would at 100%.
If I damage it that badly, it's going to affect subsystems which are no longer protected or take damage from armor being ripped away or forced in on them. Reduced turbo thrust is a good first step to introducing this mechanic without upsetting the balance of combat by impacting non-turbo thrust or weapons fire.
He does make good points, but none of those are in favor of pirates. If anything, they're in favor of the traders who hold the stations for longer periods of time. It would also introduce a new dynamic in station battles because the fight for the dock would be more frantic.
It strains credulity to think that my ship can have 1% armor, be smoking and on fire, and still perform exactly as it would at 100%.
If I damage it that badly, it's going to affect subsystems which are no longer protected or take damage from armor being ripped away or forced in on them. Reduced turbo thrust is a good first step to introducing this mechanic without upsetting the balance of combat by impacting non-turbo thrust or weapons fire.
I wouldn't have to blame wide-spectrum combat issues on FAMY if it weren't true. I agree that finger pointing devolves debate, but there has to be some acknowledgement here of the arsonists complaining about the fire they started.
My points are in favor of general gameplay. I have nothing against the pirate RP -- it's a necessary element to making VO a fun game. But you haven't been advertising your suggestion as a benefit to pirates (even though it's quite obvious it would be largely biased towards them), you have been advertising it as something beneficial to general PvP situations, and thus all involved parties, not just pirates. I don't agree with that.
Conquerable station battles are already sufficiently frantic when it comes time to take the dock, on the rare occasion a station battle actually happens. It wouldn't be bad to make it more frantic, but your suggestion affects too much OTHER gameplay to make it worthwhile.
My points are in favor of general gameplay. I have nothing against the pirate RP -- it's a necessary element to making VO a fun game. But you haven't been advertising your suggestion as a benefit to pirates (even though it's quite obvious it would be largely biased towards them), you have been advertising it as something beneficial to general PvP situations, and thus all involved parties, not just pirates. I don't agree with that.
Conquerable station battles are already sufficiently frantic when it comes time to take the dock, on the rare occasion a station battle actually happens. It wouldn't be bad to make it more frantic, but your suggestion affects too much OTHER gameplay to make it worthwhile.
I'm not saying we need more things to do. I'm saying we need more things to fight over.
"you have been advertising it as something beneficial to general PvP situations, and thus all involved parties, not just pirates. I don't agree with that."
You can disagree all you want, but I wouldn't point out that you are wrong if you weren't. You're wrong.
You can disagree all you want, but I wouldn't point out that you are wrong if you weren't. You're wrong.
How in the hell does nerfing a newbs turbo thrust HELP them kill a vet? This would make it even MORE impossible for new players to kill vets. You think NewbMcDoob UIT player who gets shot at by YT-1300 in Azek for not paying 50 credits to avoid death is going to suddenly be able to turn around and trap YT's greyhound and kill him? I'll have whatever you are smoking cause it must be strong shit.
That noob is done for in all cases, with or without their turbo starting to give out at 50% or whatever
That's what makes this a good fix-- if the fight is imbalanced, it's still going to be imbalanced. If it's a fair fight, it's still going to be a fair fight
I personally have seen hordes of noobs finally get involved in large scale PvP/group battles, and give up because their opponents run. These are not especially fun situations for them-- obviously they're going to explode way more often than they'll get a kill, being outmatched, out experienced, and out equipped. BUT they can occasionally sneak some damage in, at which point ANY half-veteran can just turn their ship and turbo away, and noobs (or even half vets) don't stand much chance of catching them. This makes a frustrating situation intolerable, and is a great catalyst for turning noobs off this game. They want to see explosions, and it's hard enough to get these without ANY vet being able to escape ANY non-vet at ANY point, on any whim. Worrying that this fix may hypothetically negatively affect noobs is important, but should not be an impenetrable roadblock when the current state of the game DOES negatively affect their gameplay experience.
Noobs would have no problem understanding that at 25% armor, their ship isn't going to work the same as it does at 100%
Noobs DO, for a fact, have a BIG problem with the fact that the 5% veteran they snuck up behind can escape with ease from their 100% ship
the nerf will broadly and negatively affect other gameplay aspects
Despite many long posts on the subject, no one has presented a credible argument about these other negatively affected aspects, unless you count losing the ability to run like a bitch at whim as an important part of PvP. As best I can tell, the bullet points at the top of your post were an attempt to show the negative ramifications. Allow me;
-We'd see those who would normally run after their armor got low simply NOT engage in PvP at all unless they felt an above 51% chance of success.
Some players will always refuse to risk their ship/weapon/ego. With this fix, at least when someone DOES decide to risk it, they can't change their mind or be a bad loser and turbo off when things start going badly.
-Conquerable stations would start to be taken by pirate and fantatical groups to simply abuse this new mechanic and farm PKs (you think station battles are PK farms NOW... just wait). This would only serve to increase the current tensions and toxicity.
Not really a valid point. It's impossible to know how such a fix would change the balance of trader vs. pirate controlled stations. How can you say that TGFT-allied won't still own the stations the majority of time?
-Deneb battles, botting and hive skirmishes would suddenly become much more difficult for newbs who would find it even MORE difficult to avoid being killed because they suddenly can't escape like they used to, resulting in decreased player retention.
These are supposed to be relatively high level activities. If someone expects to walk into a high level activity and then walk out at whim with no risk of danger when their armor gets to 10%, they deserve to explode. There is literally no argument against decreased performance-with-damage except that it's new and everyone here is used to the way things are
-Piloting in general becomes more of a nuisance, which would just make this game THAT much more undesirable to play on mobile.
Piloting when you're severely damaged becomes more of a nuisance. Explicitly, fundamentally, NOT "in general." And again, what's wrong with that except that it's different from what we're used to? Furthermore, I don't think anyone is proposing DRASTIC stat reductions so that it'll take you 10 minutes just to limp to 3000m. We're talking slight-to-noticeable changes so that it's no longer stupidly easy to run away with a 5% health ship
If the major guilds would come together and agree to mandate honorable PvP in it's most basic form
1. You admit that in the current state of the game, running is too prevalent, otherwise you wouldn't be suggesting a solution (diplomatic or otherwise)
2. Your solution is for players to agree to not participate in (or encourage) this behavior
You don't see the problem with that? Relying on goodwill to fix what is inherently a problem with game mechanics? There are soooo many issues with that!
Players agreeing not to do it was how the game existed for a long time. Gentlemen's agreements that were usually honored, and when they weren't it caused a very real reputation hit for the offender. But that fundamentally cannot grow as the game does. All it takes is one group to start running, as you identified, and then everyone MUST join in. It would be downright stupid to refuse on some moral ground when your opponent regularly does so. Again, diplomatic solutions are temporary at best as WE CAN DEFINITIVELY SEE FROM THE HISTORY OF THIS GAME
Furthermore, relying on a diplomatic solution to fix a problem that arose out of failed diplomacy is pretty much a waste of time. In what world are Itan and ONE going to agree to start giving each other fair fights to the death? That shit is never gonna happen, because both sides are too frustrated with the antics of the other. Even if through some miracle it were achieved, all it would take is one confused or temperamental noob running from a fight to spark off an escalating return to running.
That noob is done for in all cases, with or without their turbo starting to give out at 50% or whatever
That's what makes this a good fix-- if the fight is imbalanced, it's still going to be imbalanced. If it's a fair fight, it's still going to be a fair fight
I personally have seen hordes of noobs finally get involved in large scale PvP/group battles, and give up because their opponents run. These are not especially fun situations for them-- obviously they're going to explode way more often than they'll get a kill, being outmatched, out experienced, and out equipped. BUT they can occasionally sneak some damage in, at which point ANY half-veteran can just turn their ship and turbo away, and noobs (or even half vets) don't stand much chance of catching them. This makes a frustrating situation intolerable, and is a great catalyst for turning noobs off this game. They want to see explosions, and it's hard enough to get these without ANY vet being able to escape ANY non-vet at ANY point, on any whim. Worrying that this fix may hypothetically negatively affect noobs is important, but should not be an impenetrable roadblock when the current state of the game DOES negatively affect their gameplay experience.
Noobs would have no problem understanding that at 25% armor, their ship isn't going to work the same as it does at 100%
Noobs DO, for a fact, have a BIG problem with the fact that the 5% veteran they snuck up behind can escape with ease from their 100% ship
the nerf will broadly and negatively affect other gameplay aspects
Despite many long posts on the subject, no one has presented a credible argument about these other negatively affected aspects, unless you count losing the ability to run like a bitch at whim as an important part of PvP. As best I can tell, the bullet points at the top of your post were an attempt to show the negative ramifications. Allow me;
-We'd see those who would normally run after their armor got low simply NOT engage in PvP at all unless they felt an above 51% chance of success.
Some players will always refuse to risk their ship/weapon/ego. With this fix, at least when someone DOES decide to risk it, they can't change their mind or be a bad loser and turbo off when things start going badly.
-Conquerable stations would start to be taken by pirate and fantatical groups to simply abuse this new mechanic and farm PKs (you think station battles are PK farms NOW... just wait). This would only serve to increase the current tensions and toxicity.
Not really a valid point. It's impossible to know how such a fix would change the balance of trader vs. pirate controlled stations. How can you say that TGFT-allied won't still own the stations the majority of time?
-Deneb battles, botting and hive skirmishes would suddenly become much more difficult for newbs who would find it even MORE difficult to avoid being killed because they suddenly can't escape like they used to, resulting in decreased player retention.
These are supposed to be relatively high level activities. If someone expects to walk into a high level activity and then walk out at whim with no risk of danger when their armor gets to 10%, they deserve to explode. There is literally no argument against decreased performance-with-damage except that it's new and everyone here is used to the way things are
-Piloting in general becomes more of a nuisance, which would just make this game THAT much more undesirable to play on mobile.
Piloting when you're severely damaged becomes more of a nuisance. Explicitly, fundamentally, NOT "in general." And again, what's wrong with that except that it's different from what we're used to? Furthermore, I don't think anyone is proposing DRASTIC stat reductions so that it'll take you 10 minutes just to limp to 3000m. We're talking slight-to-noticeable changes so that it's no longer stupidly easy to run away with a 5% health ship
If the major guilds would come together and agree to mandate honorable PvP in it's most basic form
1. You admit that in the current state of the game, running is too prevalent, otherwise you wouldn't be suggesting a solution (diplomatic or otherwise)
2. Your solution is for players to agree to not participate in (or encourage) this behavior
You don't see the problem with that? Relying on goodwill to fix what is inherently a problem with game mechanics? There are soooo many issues with that!
Players agreeing not to do it was how the game existed for a long time. Gentlemen's agreements that were usually honored, and when they weren't it caused a very real reputation hit for the offender. But that fundamentally cannot grow as the game does. All it takes is one group to start running, as you identified, and then everyone MUST join in. It would be downright stupid to refuse on some moral ground when your opponent regularly does so. Again, diplomatic solutions are temporary at best as WE CAN DEFINITIVELY SEE FROM THE HISTORY OF THIS GAME
Furthermore, relying on a diplomatic solution to fix a problem that arose out of failed diplomacy is pretty much a waste of time. In what world are Itan and ONE going to agree to start giving each other fair fights to the death? That shit is never gonna happen, because both sides are too frustrated with the antics of the other. Even if through some miracle it were achieved, all it would take is one confused or temperamental noob running from a fight to spark off an escalating return to running.
All this because you all keep trying to make PvP an end in itself (which you're never going to fix unless you get out of that mindset). PvP should be a means to an end. Period.
I've said before, if we had a detailed economy, detailed mining, and actual reasons for controlling space, you'd see PvP all over the place. Keep arguing that PvP is the do and end all, and you're going to continue having a very lonely time online.
All this forced degradation of ships, while in a real universe makes sense, none of the other real constraints, like death actually having a really really REALLY severe cost are there either, so the argument that making ship's performance degrade is actually (or rather should be) a moot point, and while you're making all those "Force 'em" kinds of suggestions, makes you sound like cellsafe, who seems also to have an obsession with forcing people to do things. Oddly enough those most vocal about his suggestions and the catcalls they give those suggestions, are the same ones arguing for "Forcing" ship degradation in here.
You want ship degradation, then you must also accept things like death costs (however that works, but without the gimmicky garbage we've been hearing lately), ships requiring fuel, energy weapons shorting out ships systems unless they have proper electron sinks, weapons shorting out with damage, ship's systems shorting out in ion storms (they are after all free radical ions which are going to play havoc with your ship's electrical systems to the point that you might not make it OUT of an ion storm). You want ship degradation because it's "real", you need to start asking for all the other stuff too, unless there's an agenda somewhere not being mentioned.
I've said before, if we had a detailed economy, detailed mining, and actual reasons for controlling space, you'd see PvP all over the place. Keep arguing that PvP is the do and end all, and you're going to continue having a very lonely time online.
All this forced degradation of ships, while in a real universe makes sense, none of the other real constraints, like death actually having a really really REALLY severe cost are there either, so the argument that making ship's performance degrade is actually (or rather should be) a moot point, and while you're making all those "Force 'em" kinds of suggestions, makes you sound like cellsafe, who seems also to have an obsession with forcing people to do things. Oddly enough those most vocal about his suggestions and the catcalls they give those suggestions, are the same ones arguing for "Forcing" ship degradation in here.
You want ship degradation, then you must also accept things like death costs (however that works, but without the gimmicky garbage we've been hearing lately), ships requiring fuel, energy weapons shorting out ships systems unless they have proper electron sinks, weapons shorting out with damage, ship's systems shorting out in ion storms (they are after all free radical ions which are going to play havoc with your ship's electrical systems to the point that you might not make it OUT of an ion storm). You want ship degradation because it's "real", you need to start asking for all the other stuff too, unless there's an agenda somewhere not being mentioned.
Keller, we already have a variety of malfunctions that occur with ships in-game.
That's what makes this a good fix-- if the fight is imbalanced, it's still going to be imbalanced. If it's a fair fight, it's still going to be a fair fight
No, it doesn't make it a good fix, it simply shows that it has no benefit added to those with crappy piloting skills.
I personally have seen hordes of noobs finally get involved in large scale PvP/group battles, and give up because their opponents run. These are not especially fun situations for them-- obviously they're going to explode way more often than they'll get a kill, being outmatched, out experienced, and out equipped. BUT they can occasionally sneak some damage in, at which point ANY half-veteran can just turn their ship and turbo away, and noobs (or even half vets) don't stand much chance of catching them. This makes a frustrating situation intolerable, and is a great catalyst for turning noobs off this game. They want to see explosions, and it's hard enough to get these without ANY vet being able to escape ANY non-vet at ANY point, on any whim. Worrying that this fix may hypothetically negatively affect noobs is important, but should not be an impenetrable roadblock when the current state of the game DOES negatively affect their gameplay experience.
Sorry, I call bullshit on this. Honestly, I don't think I've EVER seen what you are talking about. What I do see are newbs who try to PvP with vets and VERY QUICKLY realize they stand no chance due to the skill level differentiation. Most of those newbs nowadays are mobile players who also feel incredibly handicapped by the horrible flight controls. So if you add on this additional mechanic tweak of damage-affected turbo thrust, you are simply throwing more gasoline on the fire that is already burning these newbs out of the game.
Noobs would have no problem understanding that at 25% armor, their ship isn't going to work the same as it does at 100%
They won't have a problem understanding, but they will have a problem enjoying it.
Noobs DO, for a fact, have a BIG problem with the fact that the 5% veteran they snuck up behind can escape with ease from their 100% ship
So we make a major flight mechanics change to accommodate newbs who can't catch vets?
Despite many long posts on the subject, no one has presented a credible argument about these other negatively affected aspects, unless you count losing the ability to run like a bitch at whim as an important part of PvP. As best I can tell, the bullet points at the top of your post were an attempt to show the negative ramifications. Allow me;
Allow me to point out that they are credible arguments against the proposed change (see below). What's at play here is people's ability to escape a threat. All in support of this change think that the ability to escape a threat in general is LESS important than the desires of players to have more conclusive PvP fights. Could we at least agree on this?
Some players will always refuse to risk their ship/weapon/ego. With this fix, at least when someone DOES decide to risk it, they can't change their mind or be a bad loser and turbo off when things start going badly.
Yes, you are correct, but at the cost of every other player in the game who is NOT in a situation where they decided to risk it being penalized. It's not worth it.
I said: -Conquerable stations would start to be taken by pirate and fantatical groups to simply abuse this new mechanic and farm PKs (you think station battles are PK farms NOW... just wait). This would only serve to increase the current tensions and toxicity.
Smittens said: Not really a valid point. It's impossible to know how such a fix would change the balance of trader vs. pirate controlled stations. How can you say that TGFT-allied won't still own the stations the majority of time?
I didn't say TGFT-allied players wouldn't still own the stations most of the time. I said stations would start to be abused for PK farming which would increase current tensions and toxicity (and by extension do nothing to keep people from resorting to other methods of cheap tactics in retribution). The point being it does nothing to "reduce animosity on the opposing side", which is one of the three benefits Savet says will happen -- it does quite the opposite. Furthermore, people will be more inclined to avoid conquerable station battles (what little of them there are) unless they have overwhelming numbers to offset the handicap introduced by this mechanic.
It's easy enough to attack people in conquerable stations and farm PKs... making it even easier serves no benefit to anyone but griefers and pirates looking for easier PKs.
I said: -Deneb battles, botting and hive skirmishes would suddenly become much more difficult for newbs who would find it even MORE difficult to avoid being killed because they suddenly can't escape like they used to, resulting in decreased player retention.
Smittens said: These are supposed to be relatively high level activities. If someone expects to walk into a high level activity and then walk out at whim with no risk of danger when their armor gets to 10%, they deserve to explode. There is literally no argument against decreased performance-with-damage except that it's new and everyone here is used to the way things are
I don't think anyone reasonably expects the aforementioned activities to be without risk. My argument (literally) still stands: that it will cause further newb frustration and loss of player retention -- which is a very bad thing and not worth risking simply to appease some vets who are frustrated that their kills are sneaking away. That argument is based on my personal experience trying to play this game on iPad (which was horrendous), on fights I have experienced with other players who are on mobile devices, and on the general sentiment voiced on Channels 1 and Channels 100 towards what playing on mobile devices is like.
Finally, in response to your response to my response about diplomacy (which I won't quote, but ask you refer to above threads):
You have been around much longer than I, but I have been around must more consistently than you for the past six years. And while I cannot speak to the history before I played, I can speak to what I observed when I did play, which is this ALL started to become a major concern when FAMY formed. History plays a SIGNIFICANT and UNDENIABLE role in the problem Savet is addressing, and you cannot ignore it.
FAMY's inception marked the first time since I've been playing that the "gentlemen's agreements" were pissed all over by a major guild for no reason but to stir shit up. Shit got SO stirred up to the point that the entire universe teamed up against FAMY. Then some vets appeared and took issue with seeing serco and itani working together, and thus RED formed and siphoned off some of the toxic players that were in FAMY. As a result, it became the entire universe against FAMY and RED. ONE, who had previously honored the gentlemen's agreements, found themselves between a rock and a hard place. Ultimately they decided to go along with the cheap tactics and toxic public slandering that FAMY and RED engaged in, thus setting the stage for where we are today. TODAY: RED is dead, ONE remains on life support, and FAMY has managed to survive the ordeal under new management by Savet. So as you can see, this problem did not arise out of failed guild diplomacy. It arrived out of a group of bored people stirring up controversy in the game, unreined by any sense of accountability or concern for the future consequences of their actions.
Savet has done a mighty good job at reforming FAMY into something the rest of the universe finds acceptable. But still there remain actors on both sides that have carried resentment from the above described history. For some reason, FAMY leadership seems to think that all should be forgotten and forgiven. I cannot understand their reasoning. Despite that, I believe there is still the willingness on the part of various guilds I am member of (which is and/or has been most) to return to some basic level of good sportmanship: in that if you start a fight, you should finish it.
I think there is a fear, particularly among the pirates, that if they do this they are going soft. This is not the case. It's called being mature. You do not have to be an asshole to be a pirate. You do not have to spread lies about people and defame people in order to have enemies and targets. Rin and Savet are great pirate examples of this, as well as great example of pirates who usually fight to the death, even if their ship is damaged.
Such an agreement might be temporary, yes... dynamics can shift as leadership changes and as players come in and out of the game. And it would have to be continually re-evaluated whenever a violation occurred. But it would be far more effective in changing personal behaviors than a mechanics nerf would.
Another positive side effect to guild diplomacy of this nature is that I believe it would reduce all the toxic 100 slandering we've seen.
It's not like this exact same mechanic of ship damage causing degradation of capabilities hasn't been suggested dozens of times before over the last decade plus, and for the same basic reasons. The arguments against it are just as re-hashed.
At the end of the day, VO is Space Quake and not an actual RPG in significant part because you're just as dangerous at 0.5% hull as you are at 100% hull. Which is great fun in an arena shooter, and pretty fucking annoying in something with aspirations of more overarching purpose in combat. But given that VO has not and shows no signs of being close to achieving the kind of game dynamics necessary for overarching purpose combat to be of any use...keeping VO fun as a FPS and very little else is a pretty strong argument.
Would this change make me more likely to waste my limited free time playing VO? Yes, though it probably still wouldn't be enough for me to pick VO from my other time-wasting, stare at a screen options. But given that VO has developed as a FPS and most of the players left here aren't going to like a move away from the FPS model...I can see why VO might be better served with not changing this dynamic.
At the end of the day, VO is Space Quake and not an actual RPG in significant part because you're just as dangerous at 0.5% hull as you are at 100% hull. Which is great fun in an arena shooter, and pretty fucking annoying in something with aspirations of more overarching purpose in combat. But given that VO has not and shows no signs of being close to achieving the kind of game dynamics necessary for overarching purpose combat to be of any use...keeping VO fun as a FPS and very little else is a pretty strong argument.
Would this change make me more likely to waste my limited free time playing VO? Yes, though it probably still wouldn't be enough for me to pick VO from my other time-wasting, stare at a screen options. But given that VO has developed as a FPS and most of the players left here aren't going to like a move away from the FPS model...I can see why VO might be better served with not changing this dynamic.
arf & Keller: My point is that there is plenty of real stuff to fight over, especially compared to what I've nostalgically decided was the "prime" of PvP (near-constant, sustained, largely-respectful, and very balanced between the four factions). Adding more things at this point will have sharply diminishing returns
Keller specifically: Sorry but your whole last paragraph does not in any way logically follow. "Realism" is simply a beneficial aspect of this proposed fix, not any sort of driving factor. The driving factor is that running is fucking annoying, and it's way too easy to do at any point in a fight, or the game in general
When a feature has such an inherently sensible analogy to the real world, that's a good thing (and a big reason I doubt noobs would get excessively frustrated if their banged up 10% EC can't outrun a pirate). Just because we're discussing adding one feature that can qualify as realistic in no way suggests that a bunch of other ideas must be implemented on the basis of realism.
If you truly think that suggesting a fix for the ease of running has the co-requisite of adding 'energy weapons shorting out systems unless they have proper electron sinks'... you are at least 30% nanners and probably not worth responding to. Furthermore I would ask that you delete your useless and bonkers arguments as this thread is long enough.
greenwall.. let's do this :)
When I was doing my Serco push, it felt like every noob I brought into group fights complained about their opponent's running. Some handled it better than others, but there were plenty that would give up after another enemy robbed them of a kill, and most of those people have stopped playing altogether. Many were close to getting a kill despite all the odds being against them, but most left empty handed. I'm sorry I don't have documented evidence of people complaining and then citing that complaint as a reason they cancel their subscription, but you'll just have to take my word for it
Re: Your concern for noobs & mobile players who will have a harder time
This proposed change hardly affects them. Both kinds of players are severely outclassed, with or without this fix. But it at least means that in the rare cases where they ARE facing a weak PC-er or vet in an advantageous situation, they have a realistic chance at getting a kill.
Mobile users are mostly SoL when it comes to PvP, and it's kind of foolish to balance around making a very painful experience less painful for them. If you're on a mobile device without any sort of controller, you simply do not have the UI capabilities to compete with a PC player.
For noobs, think of it this way; right now, a vet can almost always catch a noob anyway, but a noob can NEVER catch a vet. Even if they somehow get extremely lucky and dish out 95% damage without taking anything, the vet can at any time, for any reason decide the noob doesn't deserve the kill and run away. Does that really seem right to you?
(I'm sure your answer to that question is very similar to what you said earlier, specifically...)
So we make a major flight mechanics change to accommodate newbs who can't catch vets?
Obviously not! It's just another benefit of fixing the "running is too easy" issue
All in support of this change think that the ability to escape a threat in general is LESS important than the desires of players to have more conclusive PvP fights. Could we at least agree on this?
Sorry but no, I cannot :P I dispute the notion that this change effects any sort of situation "in general." I only support it if it comes into play at a certain threshold ("50%"). I do think that at a certain level of damage (say........ 50%) it should absolutely be harder to escape a threat, and easier to "conclude" the engagement. As things stand, it is simply too easy for a player to escape a large majority of situations For a game that is supposed to be about danger, it doesn't feel especially dangerous when any half decent player knows they can escape any threat 95% of the time.
Yes, you are correct, but at the cost of every other player in the game who is NOT in a situation where they decided to risk it being penalized. It's not worth it.
There is no risk until you find yourself below 50%. Again, I cite the notion Inc has put forth many times that the game should have a sense of danger and uncertainty, even in protected space but especially in gray. Do you agree with the following?
===============
If you're traveling around at 30%, you should be looking over your shoulder. If you're at 100% you should feel relatively safe, because it will be as things are now: pretty easy to outrun most things. Unless of course, you're in a fat slow ship and a pirate jumps in... in which case you should feel VERY unsafe, no matter what percent you're at.
===============
Because I fail to see how this change would do anything but make that bit more true, which seems like a good thing.
Re: Conq Stations & PK Farming
Your argument seems to boil down to... we don't want people using the Conq Stations more because they're too easy to defend/farm? Why the heck shouldn't we be encouraging MORE conq station participation?? They are one of the major PvP "causes" the devs have built for us. If there are issues with balance & PK farming, those should certainly be addressed... but to say "this change would cause more activity around Conq Stations" as a counter argument seems like we're working in the wrong direction
Diplomacy
This is going to sound sarcastic, but honestly thank you for the history lesson. The "how & why" of the descent into the relatively toxic/petty atmosphere we have today always fascinates me, and everyone seems to have a different idea of the main culprit. There are a ton of different perspectives on it, and each of them adds another piece to the puzzle!
But what you've described simply proves my point. This objectively shitty thing ('Retarded behavior encouraged by retarded behavior' (thanks Savet)) has arisen because people aren't as friendly. Clearly the level of friendliness, and by extension the level of respect & 'sportsmanship' fluctuates.
But as has been said many times, respect & sportsmanship don't even really have a place in a game called "Vendetta Online," both by design and by the inherent nature of this kind of gameplay. While it certainly makes for a shinier universe when everyone does at least respect that we're all just playing an MMO... it's foolish to expect this to be the norm, or to base a critical & majorly annoying aspect of gameplay on everyone keeping to a certain level of sportsmanship. It's unlikely, it's temporary, it just doesn't make sense. Your story even explicitly illustrates this point. You identify that running is a problem, and you aren't wrong to suggest that diplomacy can alleviate the issue, but it is certainly wrong to think that this is any kind of permanent solution. Gameplay being toxic or respectful should not hinge on a band-aid fix.
Lecter, you're right that the concept of damage->degradation has come up many times (probably even more than the Odia->Deneb wh!) but personally I haven't ever seen the specific details of:
1. Only affect ships ~50% or weaker, leave everything above 50% as "Space Quake"
2. Only lower turbo thrust & top speed, leave anything critical to the combat engine untouched
They may have been suggested independently (or together) before, I just haven't seen it & thusly haven't championed this cause yet :D But I think these two details are extremely important and allow this change to help fix running, and all behind the very popular notion of damage actually doing something... in a way that very minimally affects Space Quake style PvP. It hardly needs to be said that this aspect is almost entirely the reason I play (or more accurately, want to play) this game, so I wouldn't be spending such an absurd amount of time & words in this thread if I thought Savet's idea had any chance to seriously hurt the nature of PvP
Keller specifically: Sorry but your whole last paragraph does not in any way logically follow. "Realism" is simply a beneficial aspect of this proposed fix, not any sort of driving factor. The driving factor is that running is fucking annoying, and it's way too easy to do at any point in a fight, or the game in general
When a feature has such an inherently sensible analogy to the real world, that's a good thing (and a big reason I doubt noobs would get excessively frustrated if their banged up 10% EC can't outrun a pirate). Just because we're discussing adding one feature that can qualify as realistic in no way suggests that a bunch of other ideas must be implemented on the basis of realism.
If you truly think that suggesting a fix for the ease of running has the co-requisite of adding 'energy weapons shorting out systems unless they have proper electron sinks'... you are at least 30% nanners and probably not worth responding to. Furthermore I would ask that you delete your useless and bonkers arguments as this thread is long enough.
greenwall.. let's do this :)
When I was doing my Serco push, it felt like every noob I brought into group fights complained about their opponent's running. Some handled it better than others, but there were plenty that would give up after another enemy robbed them of a kill, and most of those people have stopped playing altogether. Many were close to getting a kill despite all the odds being against them, but most left empty handed. I'm sorry I don't have documented evidence of people complaining and then citing that complaint as a reason they cancel their subscription, but you'll just have to take my word for it
Re: Your concern for noobs & mobile players who will have a harder time
This proposed change hardly affects them. Both kinds of players are severely outclassed, with or without this fix. But it at least means that in the rare cases where they ARE facing a weak PC-er or vet in an advantageous situation, they have a realistic chance at getting a kill.
Mobile users are mostly SoL when it comes to PvP, and it's kind of foolish to balance around making a very painful experience less painful for them. If you're on a mobile device without any sort of controller, you simply do not have the UI capabilities to compete with a PC player.
For noobs, think of it this way; right now, a vet can almost always catch a noob anyway, but a noob can NEVER catch a vet. Even if they somehow get extremely lucky and dish out 95% damage without taking anything, the vet can at any time, for any reason decide the noob doesn't deserve the kill and run away. Does that really seem right to you?
(I'm sure your answer to that question is very similar to what you said earlier, specifically...)
So we make a major flight mechanics change to accommodate newbs who can't catch vets?
Obviously not! It's just another benefit of fixing the "running is too easy" issue
All in support of this change think that the ability to escape a threat in general is LESS important than the desires of players to have more conclusive PvP fights. Could we at least agree on this?
Sorry but no, I cannot :P I dispute the notion that this change effects any sort of situation "in general." I only support it if it comes into play at a certain threshold ("50%"). I do think that at a certain level of damage (say........ 50%) it should absolutely be harder to escape a threat, and easier to "conclude" the engagement. As things stand, it is simply too easy for a player to escape a large majority of situations For a game that is supposed to be about danger, it doesn't feel especially dangerous when any half decent player knows they can escape any threat 95% of the time.
Yes, you are correct, but at the cost of every other player in the game who is NOT in a situation where they decided to risk it being penalized. It's not worth it.
There is no risk until you find yourself below 50%. Again, I cite the notion Inc has put forth many times that the game should have a sense of danger and uncertainty, even in protected space but especially in gray. Do you agree with the following?
===============
If you're traveling around at 30%, you should be looking over your shoulder. If you're at 100% you should feel relatively safe, because it will be as things are now: pretty easy to outrun most things. Unless of course, you're in a fat slow ship and a pirate jumps in... in which case you should feel VERY unsafe, no matter what percent you're at.
===============
Because I fail to see how this change would do anything but make that bit more true, which seems like a good thing.
Re: Conq Stations & PK Farming
Your argument seems to boil down to... we don't want people using the Conq Stations more because they're too easy to defend/farm? Why the heck shouldn't we be encouraging MORE conq station participation?? They are one of the major PvP "causes" the devs have built for us. If there are issues with balance & PK farming, those should certainly be addressed... but to say "this change would cause more activity around Conq Stations" as a counter argument seems like we're working in the wrong direction
Diplomacy
This is going to sound sarcastic, but honestly thank you for the history lesson. The "how & why" of the descent into the relatively toxic/petty atmosphere we have today always fascinates me, and everyone seems to have a different idea of the main culprit. There are a ton of different perspectives on it, and each of them adds another piece to the puzzle!
But what you've described simply proves my point. This objectively shitty thing ('Retarded behavior encouraged by retarded behavior' (thanks Savet)) has arisen because people aren't as friendly. Clearly the level of friendliness, and by extension the level of respect & 'sportsmanship' fluctuates.
But as has been said many times, respect & sportsmanship don't even really have a place in a game called "Vendetta Online," both by design and by the inherent nature of this kind of gameplay. While it certainly makes for a shinier universe when everyone does at least respect that we're all just playing an MMO... it's foolish to expect this to be the norm, or to base a critical & majorly annoying aspect of gameplay on everyone keeping to a certain level of sportsmanship. It's unlikely, it's temporary, it just doesn't make sense. Your story even explicitly illustrates this point. You identify that running is a problem, and you aren't wrong to suggest that diplomacy can alleviate the issue, but it is certainly wrong to think that this is any kind of permanent solution. Gameplay being toxic or respectful should not hinge on a band-aid fix.
Lecter, you're right that the concept of damage->degradation has come up many times (probably even more than the Odia->Deneb wh!) but personally I haven't ever seen the specific details of:
1. Only affect ships ~50% or weaker, leave everything above 50% as "Space Quake"
2. Only lower turbo thrust & top speed, leave anything critical to the combat engine untouched
They may have been suggested independently (or together) before, I just haven't seen it & thusly haven't championed this cause yet :D But I think these two details are extremely important and allow this change to help fix running, and all behind the very popular notion of damage actually doing something... in a way that very minimally affects Space Quake style PvP. It hardly needs to be said that this aspect is almost entirely the reason I play (or more accurately, want to play) this game, so I wouldn't be spending such an absurd amount of time & words in this thread if I thought Savet's idea had any chance to seriously hurt the nature of PvP
Then just score points for damage, not only for kills.
+1 to the op
If this were to be implimented, what's to stop CheapTacticPlayer from managing his armor and running BEFORE he hits 50%? I know that I would certainly be doing such management, especially when it comes to PvE situations. And I would simply be more annoyed that I had to rep more often.
"All in support of this change think that the ability to escape a threat in general is LESS important than the desires of players to have more conclusive PvP fights. Could we at least agree on this?"
Sorry but no, I cannot
By "in general" I meant in non PvP situations and non consensual PvP situations. Obviously before 50% damage occurs all is the same as it is now. And as such, you do agree with me.
Do you agree with the following?
If you're traveling around at 30%, you should be looking over your shoulder. If you're at 100% you should feel relatively safe, because it will be as things are now: pretty easy to outrun most things. Unless of course, you're in a fat slow ship and a pirate jumps in... in which case you should feel VERY unsafe, no matter what percent you're at.
No I do not agree. I would not be travelling at 30% if it affected my turbo thrust. If my armor was below 50%, I would immediately seek repairs. So would anyone else unless there was no place to repair.
Re: conq stations ...
I don't think I can be any clearer on why I think this is a bad idea. More conquerable station action would be great, but I don't like this particular change because it encourages PK farming behavior, which is a cousin of griefing. The current balance of gameplay in conquerable stations is very good. Making this change tips the balance in favor of the defenders as an unintended consequence.
respect & sportsmanship don't even really have a place in a game called "Vendetta Online," both by design and by the inherent nature of this kind of gameplay.
You may not think so, but the devs pretty much imply it by all the things you may not do according to the RoC (at least the respect part). Respect and sportmanship should have a place in VO, they should be awarded and held high. I would like to think that Incarnate would prefer his players have an overall positive entertainment experience rather than one of hatred and vitriol. I'll let Incarnate speak for himself... because HE DEFINITELY IS READING THIS ENTIRE THREAD...RIGHT??? RIGHT???
"All in support of this change think that the ability to escape a threat in general is LESS important than the desires of players to have more conclusive PvP fights. Could we at least agree on this?"
Sorry but no, I cannot
By "in general" I meant in non PvP situations and non consensual PvP situations. Obviously before 50% damage occurs all is the same as it is now. And as such, you do agree with me.
Do you agree with the following?
If you're traveling around at 30%, you should be looking over your shoulder. If you're at 100% you should feel relatively safe, because it will be as things are now: pretty easy to outrun most things. Unless of course, you're in a fat slow ship and a pirate jumps in... in which case you should feel VERY unsafe, no matter what percent you're at.
No I do not agree. I would not be travelling at 30% if it affected my turbo thrust. If my armor was below 50%, I would immediately seek repairs. So would anyone else unless there was no place to repair.
Re: conq stations ...
I don't think I can be any clearer on why I think this is a bad idea. More conquerable station action would be great, but I don't like this particular change because it encourages PK farming behavior, which is a cousin of griefing. The current balance of gameplay in conquerable stations is very good. Making this change tips the balance in favor of the defenders as an unintended consequence.
respect & sportsmanship don't even really have a place in a game called "Vendetta Online," both by design and by the inherent nature of this kind of gameplay.
You may not think so, but the devs pretty much imply it by all the things you may not do according to the RoC (at least the respect part). Respect and sportmanship should have a place in VO, they should be awarded and held high. I would like to think that Incarnate would prefer his players have an overall positive entertainment experience rather than one of hatred and vitriol. I'll let Incarnate speak for himself... because HE DEFINITELY IS READING THIS ENTIRE THREAD...RIGHT??? RIGHT???
again in the back and forth +1 Greenwall -1 Savet -.5 Smittens
smittens, what serco push? I figured you to be a famy based on your going for this after Greenwall pointed out the drawbacks. And, people are not obligated to stay to die.
If someone wants the pk, they might want to switch out of the ship they are **comfortable** in and grab a faster ship and risk more themselves.
smittens, what serco push? I figured you to be a famy based on your going for this after Greenwall pointed out the drawbacks. And, people are not obligated to stay to die.
If someone wants the pk, they might want to switch out of the ship they are **comfortable** in and grab a faster ship and risk more themselves.
Kbiretta, pay attention.
I haven't commented in a while. I made my points in the beginning and they stand on their own.
Greenwall is just repeating things he already said. This doesn't make his points any more valid.
Smittens gets it.
And the idea of combat points for damage when they die is good, and would be in-line with pve behavior.
I haven't commented in a while. I made my points in the beginning and they stand on their own.
Greenwall is just repeating things he already said. This doesn't make his points any more valid.
Smittens gets it.
And the idea of combat points for damage when they die is good, and would be in-line with pve behavior.
No arbitrary point system will ever approach the satisfaction of going pew and seeing something explode
+1. I do want to be clear though that I only support linking turbo stats to armor. I am strongly opposed to damage causing any other sort of degraded performance in fighter sized craft. I am not supporting the OP as any kind of lead-in to a greater system, and am in fact concerned that this slope may be slippery.
Greenturd keeps babbling about some need to escape fights. Here's how you escape a fight: Kill the guy fighting you. This is an open PVP game; making it too easy for people to bail out of PVP runs contrary to that. Don't want to die? Don't play.
Greenturd keeps babbling about some need to escape fights. Here's how you escape a fight: Kill the guy fighting you. This is an open PVP game; making it too easy for people to bail out of PVP runs contrary to that. Don't want to die? Don't play.
At the end of the day, VO is Space Quake and not an actual RPG in significant part because you're just as dangerous at 0.5% hull as you are at 100% hull.
This certainly doesn't hold true for capital ships which rely on massive hulls and shields to make up for their complete inability to dodge.
This certainly doesn't hold true for capital ships which rely on massive hulls and shields to make up for their complete inability to dodge.
Pizzasgood resorts to name calling because he's out of thoughtful arguments in support of the OP.
I am arguing against the OP because it tips the balance of gameplay to a small minority of vets who are both bored with the game and also possess top-notch PvP skills. Despite all of Savet's and Smittens attempts to paint this as a benefit to the game as a whole, I remain convinced that that is not the case.
AGAIN: The OP seeks to diminish the occurence of running from consensual PvP fights by applying major flight change mechanic changes that affect ALL PvP situations (consensual and non consensual) as well as all PvE situations. The larger playerbase as a whole would be negatively affected.
You all seem to want a game where people can't get away when you don't want them to. I would suggest you find a game that has a handful of sectors contained by walled-in maps where chasing is possible and not thousands of infinite reaching sectors where chasing is not possible. There is enough opportunity for the average pilot to be trapped and caught off guard by the opportunistic PvP seeker. It is only when that PvP seeker gets so skilled that it is a rare-occurence that they fail in their attempts to kill other players-- and then they reach for more ways to kill more players.
Believe me, I get why you want this change--why people like Savet, Nahin, Smittens, and Rin are gunning for this change (and admittedly I find it strange the Lecter isn't in that group). People run and/or avoid combat with you more than anyone else because you are as good as you are. That isn't going to be changed by any flight mechanic change. What I don't get is why you think making the game more enjoyable for you few PvP aces is better for the game as a whole.
If the original suggestion countered this imbalance with some other idea to limit the impact in non consensual PvP and PvE situations, I think I'd be more likely to be on board.
I am arguing against the OP because it tips the balance of gameplay to a small minority of vets who are both bored with the game and also possess top-notch PvP skills. Despite all of Savet's and Smittens attempts to paint this as a benefit to the game as a whole, I remain convinced that that is not the case.
AGAIN: The OP seeks to diminish the occurence of running from consensual PvP fights by applying major flight change mechanic changes that affect ALL PvP situations (consensual and non consensual) as well as all PvE situations. The larger playerbase as a whole would be negatively affected.
You all seem to want a game where people can't get away when you don't want them to. I would suggest you find a game that has a handful of sectors contained by walled-in maps where chasing is possible and not thousands of infinite reaching sectors where chasing is not possible. There is enough opportunity for the average pilot to be trapped and caught off guard by the opportunistic PvP seeker. It is only when that PvP seeker gets so skilled that it is a rare-occurence that they fail in their attempts to kill other players-- and then they reach for more ways to kill more players.
Believe me, I get why you want this change--why people like Savet, Nahin, Smittens, and Rin are gunning for this change (and admittedly I find it strange the Lecter isn't in that group). People run and/or avoid combat with you more than anyone else because you are as good as you are. That isn't going to be changed by any flight mechanic change. What I don't get is why you think making the game more enjoyable for you few PvP aces is better for the game as a whole.
If the original suggestion countered this imbalance with some other idea to limit the impact in non consensual PvP and PvE situations, I think I'd be more likely to be on board.
No, ARF, they're still just as capable at 0.5% hull as they are at 100% hull - but unless they get clear long enough for the shields to come back, they won't last as nearly as long. Not the same thing, but I see how you could manage to miss the nuance.
Believe me, I get why you want this change--why people like Savet, Nahin, Smittens, and Rin are gunning for this change (and admittedly I find it strange the Lecter isn't in that group).
As noted above, I'm only not in that group because I can see the argument that VO is so far gone into FPS land that the change would upset more people than it would encourage. I would prefer VO with this change - though it's not enough of a fix for me to reinstall the client and spend my free time flying a virtual Hound rather than an actual Genesis 600 100m down in the ocean. I just wish I had gauss cannons on my DPV.
Believe me, I get why you want this change--why people like Savet, Nahin, Smittens, and Rin are gunning for this change (and admittedly I find it strange the Lecter isn't in that group).
As noted above, I'm only not in that group because I can see the argument that VO is so far gone into FPS land that the change would upset more people than it would encourage. I would prefer VO with this change - though it's not enough of a fix for me to reinstall the client and spend my free time flying a virtual Hound rather than an actual Genesis 600 100m down in the ocean. I just wish I had gauss cannons on my DPV.